Party Decline, Renewal, and Weaknesses (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes
Party Decline, Renewal, and Weaknesses
Introduction: The debate over party decline and renewal
Historically, US political parties have been viewed as weak and lacking clear ideological substance. Organisationally, they often played second fiddle to individual candidates, special interest groups and wealthy donors. Lord Bryce, writing in 1888 in his classic work The American Commonwealth, famously described US parties as "two bottles, each having a label denoting the type of liquor it contains, but each being empty".
This metaphor captured the essence of nineteenth-century American parties: they existed in name and structure, but lacked the substantive ideological content that defined European political parties of the era. The "empty bottles" imagery suggested parties were mere vessels without meaningful content to distinguish them from one another.
As late as 1972, public opinion reflected this ambiguity. When asked "Are there any important differences in what the two parties stand for?", 44% of Americans said no, whilst only 46% said yes. In the twenty-first century, however, no one could remotely accuse the two main parties of being similar in ideology and values. Yet this ideological distinctiveness does not necessarily mean that US parties themselves are alive and well as organisations.
Understanding party decline and renewal
Key Definitions:
Party decline refers to the argument that parties have become weak and enfeebled, with little real power or grip on US politics. They are seen as organisationally fragmented and unable to control candidates or policy-making effectively.
Party renewal, by contrast, argues that parties remain central to US political life and have grown in importance and relevance in recent times. This view emphasises their increasing ideological coherence and their continued dominance of electoral politics.
It is important to note that terms like DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) are essentially obsolete today. Both parties have lost much of their overlapping wings, with nearly all Democrats now more liberal than the most moderate Republican, and vice versa. This reflects the growing polarisation between the two parties.
The Broder thesis: The argument for party decline
David Broder published his influential work The Party's Over in 1972, during the Vietnam War era but before the Watergate crisis. The phrase "The Party's over" is often misunderstood - Broder was not predicting the demise of US political parties. Rather, he argued that the party system was not working effectively and had contributed to dysfunction in US politics. His central question was whether US parties had become merely vote-winning machines bereft of positive functions, or whether they could be reformed to serve democracy better.
Key arguments of the Broder thesis
Broder made several critical observations about party decline:
Foreign policy failures: Parties had largely abdicated their role in formulating foreign policy positions, leaving too much power in the hands of unelected "experts" and technicians. As Broder noted, elections were held and party control shifted, but figures like Walt Rostow and Henry Kissinger never seemed to lose their grip on foreign policy machinery.
Weak congressional leadership: Parties needed to be reinvigorated and their congressional leaderships given greater powers, with less emphasis on seniority. Broder argued that leadership should be held accountable for bringing legislation to which the party is committed to a floor vote in an orderly and timely fashion, with adequate opportunity for debate and consideration of opposition alternatives.
Broder's call for stronger congressional leadership reflected his belief in traditional party parliamentary government. He envisioned a system where party leaders could effectively guide their members and deliver on campaign promises, similar to how parliamentary systems like the UK's operate.
Institutional reforms needed: Broder called for an end to the Senate filibuster and the Electoral College, to better enable the elected to govern and to reflect the direct will of the people in presidential elections. Essentially, he was arguing for many essentials of traditional party parliamentary government as observed in the UK.
Warning about demagoguery: Perhaps most presciently, Broder warned of the dangers of ignoring party renewal. Without a strong, responsible party system, power might become centralised in the White House with a president who exploits demagoguery, uses the whole country as his political backyard, and embodies personal government rather than democratic accountability.
He warned that a plausible demagogue might promise to restore order and discipline, deal harshly with demonstrators, and ensure press cooperation - ultimately destroying freedom and democracy in the process.
Campaign finance reforms: Broder argued for restrictions on campaign finance, with funding mostly channelled through party campaign committees rather than individual candidates. He also called for a reduction in the number of directly elected offices, especially at state and local level.
Greater public participation: Broder concluded by emphasising that "the cure for the ills of democracy truly is more democracy". He argued that parties are weak principally because citizens do not use them, and millions more Americans needed to get into partisan political activity to make parties strong and representative.
Many of Broder's observations and prophecies ring eerily true today, though some of his proposed reforms remain out of reach.
Comparing the arguments: Parties in decline vs parties in renewal
The debate over whether US parties are in decline or experiencing renewal involves contrasting perspectives on several key aspects of American politics:
| Parties in decline | Parties in renewal |
|---|---|
| The growth of primaries at all levels has rendered the candidate selection role of parties largely redundant, reinforcing party weakness and intra-party divisions. | Primaries reinforce the "party brand", as nearly all aspiring candidates choose to align themselves with one of the two dominant parties. Parties are simply opening their doors to a wider selectorate rather than relying on old-style machine politics. When primaries conclude, parties usually coalesce around the winners. |
| Most political campaigns are candidate-focused not party-focused. Party names and symbols are largely absent from personal adverts and posters. The emphasis is on individual qualities and vision, not the wider party platform. | Although campaigns are heavily focused on individuals, in nearly all cases their personal message reflects commonly held values and policies within their party. |
| Parties play a small role in political communication. Aside from national nominating conventions, most rallies and adverts are created, paid for and delivered by candidates, not central party structures. Social media has accelerated this process. | The Hill committees and other associated groups run adverts, direct donor funding and seek to promote candidates, especially those seen as strong and fighting close races. |
| Many US voters have traditionally engaged in split-ticket voting, suggesting parties have less importance than individual candidates. For example, New Hampshire in 2020 re-elected its Democrat senator (Jeanne Shaheen) and its Republican governor (Chris Sununu). | Split-ticket voting has shown a marked decrease in recent decades. In 2016, every state holding a Senate election voted for the presidential candidate from the same party - 100% straight-ticket voting. In 2020, only Maine split its Senate and presidential votes. |
| Voter turnout has decreased in recent times, suggesting wider disenchantment with US politics and its party system. | In fact, voter turnout has not fallen consistently. For example, it went up considerably in the 2020 election. |
| US parties remain broad, "big tent" organisations comprised of conflicting outlooks and policies. Considerable division exists within parties, for example over approaches to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or defunding the police. | US parties have become increasingly narrow and homogeneous in terms of both policy platform and support base. Polarisation and hyperpartisanship both in Congress and among the wider public now dominate the political scene. |
Analysing the evidence:
The contrasting perspectives above reveal that the debate is not simply about whether parties are strong or weak, but about how we measure party strength. Are parties strong because of their ideological coherence and voter loyalty, or are they weak because of their organisational fragmentation and inability to control candidates? The answer likely depends on which dimension of party politics one emphasises.
Conclusions regarding party decline and renewal
No one can deny the very real divisions within contemporary US society, both politically and culturally. Whilst "purple America" still exists, much of the USA is distinctly red or blue. Through social media follows and likes, news consumption choices and voting patterns, the US electorate is in no doubt that modern parties are far from "ideological vacuum flasks". Both Republicans and Democrats have become much more ideologically distinct and different on issues such as immigration, guns and many other policy areas.
According to Professor Torben Lutjen, "America has split into closed and radically separated enclaves that follow their own constructions of reality." The USA is sharply divided, and this division is reflected in its parties. This observation highlights how partisan identity has become intertwined with how Americans perceive reality itself, creating parallel information ecosystems.
However, political division is one thing; seeing parties at the forefront of this divide is quite another. Many essentials of the Broder thesis remain valid. Institutionally and organisationally, US parties remain weak. If anything, the problems Broder identified have escalated. In reality, what exists are loose ideological webs comprising interest groups, donors, individual candidates and party organisations.
Case study: Justice Democrats
Case Study: Justice Democrats and Primary Challenges
Justice Democrats are a progressive political action committee that illustrates the complex relationship between parties and ideological movements. Their activities demonstrate how factional groups operate within the broader party framework.
Their 2020 Strategy: In 2020, they endorsed 16 Democrat candidates in House races. Most did not mount liberal primary challenges but ran to fill open Democratic seats or against Republican incumbents.
Notable Primary Challenge - Jessica Cisneros vs Henry Cuellar: One notable exception was Jessica Cisneros, a 26-year-old immigration attorney whose 2020 challenge they endorsed against Henry Cuellar, an eight-term Blue Dog incumbent from South Texas. Cuellar was one of the few anti-abortion Democrats in the House with an 'A rating' from the National Rifle Association. His opponent dubbed him "Trump's favourite Democrat" and publicised that he voted with the president nearly 70% of the time in the last Congress. Cisneros narrowly lost the primary challenge by 52%-48%.
Successful Candidates: Successful candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. Their specific pledges include fighting for the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college, ending mass incarceration and deportation, and rejecting all corporate PAC money. Some of these policies are to the left of mainstream Democrat positions.
Key Lesson: This case study demonstrates how factional groups and allied PACs play a particularly significant role in primary elections, seeking to support their favoured candidates. In both parties, the principal distinction is between pragmatic centrists willing to work with the other party on occasion, and the more "ideologically pure" who equate compromise with selling out the party's soul.
Evidence of candidate-focused politics
To illustrate the weakness of party structures, consider candidate websites, which typically feature long lists of endorsements from various interest groups rather than prominent party affiliation.
Example: Debbie Dingell's 2020 Endorsements
In 2020, Michigan congresswoman Debbie Dingell's formal endorsements included:
- The Sierra Club
- The National Education Association
- NARAL Pro-Choice America
- The Brady Campaign (gun control)
- Several labour unions
- The Detroit Federation of Musicians
Notably absent was any specific mention of her party affiliation, demonstrating how interest group endorsements often take precedence over party identity in candidate branding.
To summarise: perhaps we should talk instead of "distinct parties but disparate structures". Parties are clearly being renewed in terms of ideological depth and content, but not as centralised structures. The party is far from over; it has just moved into several different venues.
The main weaknesses of American parties
Despite growing partisanship and political polarisation, US parties remain weak in terms of structure. The main weaknesses can be summarised as follows:
Structural Weaknesses of US Parties:
Lack of single leader: US parties lack a single leader. The national nominating conventions formally select candidates, not party leaders. This means there is no equivalent to a UK party leader who can impose discipline and direction.
Candidate-focused campaigns: Most election campaigns and political advertising focus on individual candidates, not the party label. Personal brands matter more than party identity in many races.
Dispersed power: Power within parties is dispersed, not concentrated. They resemble the Constitution in this way. Each congressional chamber has its own party leader, there are chairs of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and RNC (Republican National Committee), and there are leading figures in each state party. Add powerful state governors, the president, and influential pressure groups and PACs/Super PACs aligned with each main party, and any sense of a top-down hierarchical party structure is non-existent.
Federal system effects: The federal nature and size of the USA exacerbates this problem. State parties retain significant control over many aspects of primary elections, for example, creating further fragmentation.
Direct primaries: Above all, the rise of direct primaries as opposed to old-style machine politics to select candidates makes parties weaker. Most elected politicians are independent political operators whose main concern is not to upset powerful interest groups or their strongly ideological core voters (those most likely to vote in primaries) back home. The candidature of Donald Trump, for instance, was strongly opposed by nearly all the Republican Party establishment at the primary stage, but when he prevailed, internal party dissent largely disappeared.
Absence of effective sanctions: A resultant key weakness is the absence of effective sanctions, especially over rebel legislators. Whilst pressure can be applied by party leadership, primary voters often prove the stronger force in determining political careers.
In short, never has the platform/ideological gap between the parties been greater, but arguably never has the power of party structures been weaker in determining the course and candidates for each party.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Party decline vs renewal: US parties show contradictory trends - they are ideologically stronger and more distinct than ever, yet structurally weaker and more fragmented as organisations.
-
The Broder thesis: David Broder (1972) argued that weak parties contributed to dysfunction in US politics and warned of dangers including presidential demagoguery if parties were not renewed and strengthened.
-
Key weaknesses: US parties lack single leaders, depend on candidate-focused campaigns, have dispersed power structures, and cannot effectively sanction rebel members. The rise of primaries has further weakened central party control.
-
Modern polarisation: Contemporary US parties are far from Lord Bryce's "empty bottles" - they represent sharply divided ideological positions, with hyperpartisanship and political polarisation now dominating the political scene.